\documentclass[a4papar,12pt]{article}

\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{multirow}

\usepackage{fourier}

\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{xcolor}

\begin{document}

\title{Training Report 6}
\author{NowOrNever}
\date{March 20, 2014}
\maketitle

\begin{tabular}{ll}
	\textbf{Problem Set:} & 2011-2012 Petrozavodsk Summer Training Camp, 
					Kyiv + Kharkov NU Contest . \\
	\textbf{URL:}         & \url{http://codeforces.com/gym/100025}. \\
	\textbf{Result:}      & 7/11, Penalty 1018. \\
	\textbf{Rank:}        & 8nd. \\
\end{tabular}

\section{Note}
	We have a try that WQS write more problems and FQW help WQS and CLJ.
	FQW surely write only one program during the contest,
		but he failed to find out any bug from WQS and CLJ's codes.
	Without WQS's help, some of the problems can not be solved.
	This unsuccessful training implies that we should better let
		WQS think more and write less.

\section{Pass Logs}
	See \url{http://codeforces.com/gym/100025/standings} for details.

\section{Simple Logs}
	In the first two hours,
	FQW wrote his only program F using 17 minutes.
	WQS solved K (10 min) and I (15 min).
	CLJ solved C (15 min) and had trouble with E.
	FQW then helped to find E's bug.
	
	At 2:17, CLJ's E was accepted.
	WQS solved A at 2:20.
	Then from 2:20 to 3:00, WQS was writting J.
	
	At 3:00, CLJ tell FQW about H's algorithm,
		but FQW refused to write it since he can not fully understand
		how to implement it.
	CLJ then wrote H for about 15 minutes.
	After he WA this problem, FQW and he tried to find bug for 30 minutes,
		and CLJ finally found the stupid bug.
	During this period, WQS failed to find the bug of his J.
	
	From 4:05 to 4:30, CLJ write G but he failed.
	From 4:30 to 5:00, WQS write D but WA.
	
	We finally find the stupid bugs of both J and D after contest.

\section{Our Mistakes}

\subsection{FQW}
	\begin{itemize}
		\item I think this is about the wrong strategy.
			I am not good at reading codes so I have nearly no help
				if I write no program.
			Meanwhile WQS is good at thinking algorithms and reading codes
				so I think he should not write so many codes.
	\end{itemize}
\subsection{WQS}
%	\begin{itemize}
%	\end{itemize}
\subsection{CLJ}
	\begin{itemize}
		\item Will, this training is a big tragedy, we are clearly on the wrong road. I am too young, sometimes naive. But at least we know that we shouldn't let WQS write much code and he can just function as a algorithm thinker would be much better.
	\end{itemize}

\end{document}
